The media screwed up again.

First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage.

Of course, climate deniers have jumped on this story:

Yes, during the Maunder Minimum, Earth got colder. England’s River Thames froze over. Arctic sea ice crawled south. But this mini ice age had many causes: given where other climate variables stood, a drop in solar activity chilled parts of the world.

Those other variables (volcanic eruptions, carbon emissions, etc.) matter. If they change, then falling solar activity — even a decrease on par with the Maunder Minimum — won’t necessarily result in another mini ice age.

Nope. It won’t happen. A big solar minimum would pull temps down by around 0.13°C from where they’d otherwise be, the Nature Communications study explains. That’s tiny compared to the expected 2°C to 6°C global temperature rise — a rise caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

The study states that “this offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years.” A mere two years. No ice age: global warming will briefly, barely stumble — then charge ahead again.

https://medium.com/@aurevig/media-failure-bad-journalism-behind-the-mini-ice-age-651cd5af9df8

UK tabloids, conservative media, and others are (mis)reporting that the Earth will enter a “mini ice age” in the 2030s. In fact, not only is the story wrong, the reverse is actually true.

A recent study concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”

That’s true even for one as big as the Maunder Minimum, which was linked to the so-called Little Ice Age.

The “Little Ice Age” is a term used to cover what appears to have been two or three periods of modest cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1550 and 1850.

The latest research finds that what short-term cooling there was during the Little Ice Age was mostly due to volcanoes, not the solar minimum. As “Scientific American” explained in its 2012 piece on the LIA, “New simulations show that several large, closely spaced eruptions (and not decreased solar radiation) could have cooled the Northern Hemisphere enough to spark sea-ice growth and a subsequent feedback loop.” The period associated with the LIA “coincide with two of the most volcanically active half centuries in the past millennium, according to the researchers.”

The cooling effect from the drop in solar activity during even a Maunder Minimum is quite modest.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/the-truth-about-some-medias-mini-ice-age/news-story/31de1cbe151ef6b36dfd522f9643dcd9

And then you have David DuByne making local weather observations and trying to tie them into a change in global climate.

Complete unscientific nonsense

.

Thats assuming that the little ice age was global, which it wasn't

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850.[7][8][9] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions.

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population.

the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 11:48am:

Thats assuming that the little ice age was global, which it wasn't

What arrant nonsense.

Try googling

LIA - Peru

LIA - New Zealand

LIA - Tasmania

LIA - Antarctica

Heightened volcanic activity -

"The study, led by the University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations, suggests that an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the [highlight]Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D[/highlight]. "

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm

"Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 ce"

https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age#ref299981

Now if only they could explain the LIA continuing for about another 650 years in their paper.

Aerosols from Pinataubo only lasted months in the atmosphere. 700 years is a big stretch. ;)

Strange that you missed the LIA in the Southern hemisphere.

"Southern Hemisphere
Scientific works point out cold spells and climate changes in areas of the Southern Hemisphere and their correlation to the Little Ice Age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

You are such a tiresome Persistent Debate Troll lee


Quote:

It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850. Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions. Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity In contrast, a climate reconstruction based on glacial length[15][16] shows no great variation from 1600 to 1850 but strong retreat thereafter.

So in other words the cool spells in the south didn't correlate with the cool spells in the north, which is what you would expect if it was driven by decreases in solar radiation.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 1:24pm:

You are such a tiresome Persistent Debate Troll lee Quote: It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850. Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions. Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity In contrast, a climate reconstruction based on glacial length[15][16] shows no great variation from 1600 to 1850 but strong retreat thereafter. So in other words the cool spells in the south didn't correlate with the cool spells in the north, which is what you would expect if it was driven by decreases in solar radiation.

So on the one hand you use a metric of worldwide heightened volcanic activity, which apparently only affected the NH,  and on the other that they didn't tightly correlate, because they varied because of local conditions? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Last time I looked 1850 was in the 19th century. So what exactly is your point.


You have added nothing that points to the LIA being NH only.

What about galactic cosmic rays?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 3:19pm:

What about galactic cosmic rays?

he hasn't got a clue...

but lets face it bobby...

he's now admitting that we've been right for the last couple of years...

that the Earth is going to cool.... not warm...

nice one Barney..

your eyes are slowly starting to open..

but I agree with you..

in the fact we need to live a cleaner way of life... bobby would agree as well.. im sure..

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 9:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2018 at 3:19pm: What about galactic cosmic rays? he hasn't got a clue... but lets face it bobby... he's now admitting that we've been right for the last couple of years... that the Earth is going to cool.... not warm... nice one Barney.. your eyes are slowly starting to open.. but I agree with you.. in the fact we need to live a cleaner way of life... bobby would agree as well.. im sure..

Yep - Barny thinks he can undo 332 pages of evidence
with a quote from one website.
He's got to be joking.

Monk has lied on the other forum.
Galactic cosmic rays cause clouds.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64bWsVUPjo

Grand Solar Minimum Primer: Svensmark-The Cloud Mystery (Klimamysteriet) #6/10



Published on Jul 14, 2017

In part #6/10 of the Grand Solar Minimum Primer we focus on Galactic Cosmic Rays and their influence on global climate.
Recent studies and discoveries at CERN have proven that galactic cosmic rays cause cloud nucleation. Therefore galactic cosmic ray intensity can be correlated to global climate change. This is due to the albedo effect and increasing cloud nucleation resulting in global cooling. I have provided many provocative links to help you get started on your journey to understand the truth about climate change and eliminate the dogma.

The Cloud Mystery is a documentary by Danish director Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen. It explores a controversial (until now) theory by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on how galactic cosmic rays and solar activity may affect cloud cover, and how this might influence global warming.

All this nonsense disproved here.

I can’t post this stuff here because Booby will censor it to fit in with his mystic belief that we are in an ice age.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2018 at 11:36am:

All this nonsense disproved here. I can’t post this stuff here because Bobby will censor it to fit in with his mystic belief that we are in an ice age.

You can post whatever you like as long as it's within the rules.
Calling me "Booby" won't get you far.
Remember this sub forum is an island in a sea of contempt.

STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE.

I like this...  from Barnacle...

Quote:

First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage.

Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::)

Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 9:48am:

STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE. I like this...  from Barnacle... Quote: First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage. Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::)

Yes - what an admission.

Monk should admit that David DuByne is right too.
Monk moved to Tassy where he'll get 7 month long winters.
He'll soon regret that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

Where is the ice age, Booby?

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Where is the ice age, Booby?

Once again JM is forced to present the graph of ESTIMATES of Global Temperature, but without the uncertainties that are inherent in estimates. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 6:31pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24th, 2018 at 6:24pm: Where is the ice age, Bobby? Once again JM is forced to present the graph of ESTIMATES of Global Temperature, but without the uncertainties that are inherent in estimates. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And Monk ignores all the reports of falsification of data by NOAA.

The truth is that both Arctic and Antarctic have grown in size since last year in terms of amounts of ice.
I'm sick of posting & reposting the graphs.

OOPS. I was wrong.

"The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling."

No other uncertainties will be entertained by the authors.

All the sceptics will be thoroughly entertained.

Looks like the uncertainties vary from about +/-1.5C in 1890 on very sparse data and down to +/-0.5c in about 2010. And even then with large data holes.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 6:35pm:

lee wrote on Apr 24th, 2018 at 6:31pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24th, 2018 at 6:24pm: Where is the ice age, Bobby? Once again JM is forced to present the graph of ESTIMATES of Global Temperature, but without the uncertainties that are inherent in estimates. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D And Monk ignores all the reports of falsification of data by NOAA. The truth is that both Arctic and Antarctic have grown in size since last year in terms of amounts of ice. I'm sick of posting & reposting the graphs.

So you are now basing your ridiculous case for an ice age on minor fluctuations in polar ice??? 2016 was a big El Nino, 2017 was ENSO–neutral to minor La Nina as was early 2018? Look at the graph of temperatures I posted, see how the temperatures end up 1.2°C HOTTER in 2017 than in 1880? Look at the chart and you will see it is full of small peaks and valleys, El Ninos causing the peaks and La Ninas and the bigger volcanic eruptions the valleys? Notice that La Nina years are now WARMER than El Nino years late last century?

We are now seeing the overturning currents slow because of melting ice at both poles!

The globe has warmed 1.2°C since 1880. There is no ice age.

This is the (corrected) graph of ice extent by Bremen University:

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png

Ice extent is lower than in 2016 and 2017 and has been for most of this year.

Your ice age is a fantasy!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:42am:

So you are now basing your ridiculous case for an ice age on minor fluctuations in polar ice??? 2016 was a big El Nino, 2017 was ENSO–neutral to minor La Nina as was early 2018? Look at the graph of temperatures I posted, see how the temperatures end up 1.2°C HOTTER in 2017 than in 1880? Look at the chart and you will see it is full of small peaks and valleys, El Ninos causing the peaks and La Ninas and the bigger volcanic eruptions the valleys? Notice that La Nina years are now WARMER than El Nino years late last century? We are now seeing the overturning currents slow because of melting ice at both poles! The globe has warmed 1.2°C since 1880. There is no ice age.

Monk,
you ignored almost all of the evidence in 332 pages of the Ice Age thread.
You admit to not watching any of the videos -
the many 100s of videos -
and many of them not by David DuByne but full documentaries
with opinions & facts from environment scientists.
You're biased and you can't admit as I do that there
is strong evidence for both sides of this complex debate.

You don't admit that there were warmer times on this planet
when the CO2 levels were lower than now.
Your ideas follow in step with Al Gore who has had every
one of his predictions proven false.

You continue to debate on the other forum where I won't post
as Aussie is trying to steal this environment forum away from me.

You're so obsessed by global warming that you've moved to Tasmania to get away from the heat.
Your punishment will be 7 month long winters down there
& I hope you send us all the record snow & ice reports &
post them here - in full.

Good luck.

Bobby

There is no evidence of global cooling in the 332 pages of fantasy videos by Dubyne.

He talks of local cold weather only.

He never talks of hot weather events.

He never talks of global climate

He always talks of Arctic ice getting thicker when it is generally thinner and of lower extent than previous years. A specially constructed LNG ship sailed the Arctic in December 2017—WINTER.

He said the 2017 Australian wheat crop was a failure due to a cold winter. Australia in 2017 had a WARM winter and the wheat crop was 2% higher than the 10 year average.

There is nothing in those 332 pages that indicates we are moving into an ice age.

When you have had a look at that chart of ice extent, with 2018 generally lower in ice extent than 2016 and 2017 come and talk sensibly.

I record cold event in one location would mean very little -
but record cold events all over the world including
the "bombogenesis" in the USA  -

yes they even had to invent a new name for it -

means that the cold weather predicted came true.
Global warming would not mean extremely cold weather
all over the world that has broken all known records -
it would mean warmer than usual weather.

Bombogenesis is the term for a storm where the barometric pressure drops 20 or more points very quickly. It happened before the three northeasters hit the US north east coast earlier this year.

The three northeasters travelled pretty much the same track because of a stuck pattern in the Jet Stream. The Jet Stream, especially in the northern hemisphere but also in the southern, has been affected by Arctic Amplification of AGW—the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than lower latitudes.

The storms were fed by an Atlantic 9°C warmer than normal in the part where the Gulf Stream travels.

Temperatures are increasing, polar ice is decreasing. The overturning ocean circulation is slowing down due to melting ice at both poles. That is what is happening.

I do not follow Al Gore, I have never read a word of his, I have not watched his film and Inconvenient Truth. Somewhere here you will find some large posts dealing with a paper discussing the pattern of climate through geological time, how CO2 varied, temperatures and the brightness of the sun. Go find it and read it and get some reality into your brain.

The world is warming.

The poles are melting and glaciers are in retreat nearly everywhere.

A Grand Solar Minimum will give, at most, 0.3°C cooling compared to 1.2°C warming since 1880. AGW will continue and the bit of cooling will be overtaken in not many years and the globe go back to heating up. We can only reverse that by ceasing to emit CO2 and removing CO2 from our atmosphere.

These are the facts.

Arctic ice extent is lower now than it has been in recorded history.

The globe is warming because we have out 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 7:30am:

I do not follow Al Gore, I have never read a word of his, I have not watched his film and Inconvenient Truth. Somewhere here you will find some large posts dealing with a paper discussing the pattern of climate through geological time, how CO2 varied, temperatures and the brightness of the sun. Go find it and read it and get some reality into your brain. The world is warming. The poles are melting and glaciers are in retreat nearly everywhere. A Grand Solar Minimum will give, at most, 0.3°C cooling compared to 1.2°C warming since 1880. AGW will continue and the bit of cooling will be overtaken in not many years and the globe go back to heating up. We can only reverse that by ceasing to emit CO2 and removing CO2 from our atmosphere. These are the facts. Arctic ice extent is lower now than it has been in recorded history. The globe is warming because we have out 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850.

And you ignore the extreme record cold conditions from all over the planet.
I hope the cold will not be too much for you in Tasmania -
especially at your age -
you're walking right into where it will hit the hardest.
I wonder how high the snow you will get around & on top of your house?
Please post many pictures.
I can't wait.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/snow-storm_1.jpg

Local cold conditions in a warming world are just that.

The trend is clearly to a warmer and warmer world.

Most of what Dubyne says is record cold isn’t.

The Beast from the East dropped temperatures in England this winter, yes. However, at the same time and due to the same cause—warm air invading the Arctic via Siberia the Arctic warmed. Global temperature did not drop.

Global temperatures show the globe is warming. Global sea level data shows the seas are rising. Ice sheets and glaciers are retreating and thinning. These are the overall trends, there is no gainsaying that at all!

Just posted that graph to Twitter to expose the ice ace fraudsters and liars!

Quote:

OCEAN CIRCULATION. Observing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation yields a decade of inevitable surprises. Srokosz MA1, Bryden HL2. Abstract The importance of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) heat transport for climate is well acknowledged. Climate models predict that the AMOC will slow down under global warming, with substantial impacts, but measurements of ocean circulation have been inadequate to evaluate these predictions. Observations over the past decade have changed that situation, providing a detailed picture of variations in the AMOC. These observations reveal a surprising degree of AMOC variability in terms of the intraannual range, the amplitude and phase of the seasonal cycle, the interannual changes in strength affecting the ocean heat content, and the decline of the AMOC over the decade, both of the latter two exceeding the variations seen in climate models.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26089521

Try, at least, to read SOME real science, Bobby!

Try & watch a report from a real scientist Monk:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64bWsVUPjo

Grand Solar Minimum Primer: Svensmark-The Cloud Mystery (Klimamysteriet) #6/10



Published on Jul 14, 2017

In part #6/10 of the Grand Solar Minimum Primer we focus on Galactic Cosmic Rays and their influence on global climate.
Recent studies and discoveries at CERN have proven that galactic cosmic rays cause cloud nucleation. Therefore galactic cosmic ray intensity can be correlated to global climate change. This is due to the albedo effect and increasing cloud nucleation resulting in global cooling. I have provided many provocative links to help you get started on your journey to understand the truth about climate change and eliminate the dogma.

The Cloud Mystery is a documentary by Danish director Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen. It explores a controversial (until now) theory by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on how galactic cosmic rays and solar activity may affect cloud cover, and how this might influence global warming.

Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 9:48am:

STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE. I like this...  from Barnacle... Quote: First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage. Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::)

I do not recall anyone ever saying that Global warming would be immune to other natural temperature events ?

Lucky this one is a cooling event and not the opposite ?

Henrik Svensmark is a fraud. He does not follow the scientific method but tortures data—just excludes data that does not fit his theory—until he finds a weak correlation and says “Theory proved!”

GCRs do cause some nucleation in the atmosphere but those nuclei are too small to have water vapor condense on them. Do some Googling—I am right. In a fantasy video earlier this year a commenter explained at length that GCRs do NOT cause clouds.

Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 9:48am:

STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE. I like this...  from Barnacle... Quote: First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage. Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Is that your conclusion?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't know where you got the idea that one thing controls temperature.

Here's a project for you.
Why don't you tell us what the hottest planet in the solar system is
You can google it if you like

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 9:07am:

Henrik Svensmark is a fraud. He does not follow the scientific method but tortures data—just excludes data that does not fit his theory—until he finds a weak correlation and says “Theory proved!” GCRs do cause some nucleation in the atmosphere but those nuclei are too small to have water vapor condense on them. Do some Googling—I am right. In a fantasy video earlier this year a commenter explained at length that GCRs do NOT cause clouds.

Henrik Svensmark is a scientist  - not an internet troll like Jovial Monk

No, he is a total fraud! GCRs do not cause condensation of water vapor.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:42am:

Ice extent is lower than in 2016 and 2017 and has been for most of this year.

NSIDC says different.

Currently showing the data for April 23 2018 13.552 Million sq kms

April 23 2017 was 13.554 Million sq kms

April 23 2016 was 13.550 Million sq kms.

So between 2017 and 2018 showing a drop of 0.015%. Oh so scary. But larger than 2016.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

So, basically less or the same despite cooler conditions after the 2016 El Nino.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 11:33am:

No, he is a total fraud! GCRs do not cause condensation of water vapor.

"Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

peer-reviewed science.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:

So, basically less or the same despite cooler conditions after the 2016 El Nino.

Which completely blows your argument out of the water. ;)

Oh; you expected the oceans to react instantaneously? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Cooler conditions globally since El Nino year 216 yet decrease in Arctic ice destroys my argument? Really?

Does blow the ice age nonsense out the water tho.

Quote:

Altmetric: 480More detail Article | OPEN Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv & J. Svensmark Nature Communicationsvolume 8, Article number: 2199 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2 19 December 2017 Abstract Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.

mass-flux — can constitute etc. Lukewarm support at best.

We get more clouds because warmer seas evaporate more moisture into warmer air.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

Cooler conditions globally since El Nino year 216 yet decrease in Arctic ice destroys my argument? Really?

You are the one stating  that it should be better by now. ;)

But of course your version of the Arctic includes Southern Greenland. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:

Lukewarm support at best.

Lukewarm support for a "fraud"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lukewarm support at best for GCRs causing condensation. None at all for GCRs causing any change to the climate. Nuclei are just too bloody small!

Monk's scientific knowledge is over 100 years out of date:

Cloud chambers have been known about since 1911.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber


He pursued the application of this discovery and perfected the first cloud chamber in 1911. In Wilson's original chamber the air inside the sealed device was saturated with water vapor, then a diaphragm was used to expand the air inside the chamber (adiabatic expansion), cooling the air and starting to condense water vapor. Hence the name expansion cloud chamber is used. When an ionizing particle passes through the chamber, water vapor condenses on the resulting ions and the trail of the particle is visible in the vapor cloud.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chxv5G6UFl0

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

Lukewarm support at best for GCRs causing condensation. None at all for GCRs causing any change to the climate. Nuclei are just too bloody small!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:

We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory.

Oh, It was only YOU who thought it was lukewarm. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hi Lee,
poor Monk - he gets bashed from pillar to post when
he tries his luck on this forum.
All his claims turn into nonsense.
No wonder he mostly posts at his mate Aussie's forum.  :)

No, not at all. I have known about cloud chambers for longer than you have been alive.

I post in Relationships now purely because you cannot be trusted with my posts.

The world is warming and ice sheets and glaciers are retreating and those facts have not been rebutted in the slightest. At least Lees tries, a bit desperately and pathetically, to defend his denialist stance, you are too pissweak to do the same with your ice age crap and Dubyne videos.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

The world is warming and ice sheets and glaciers are retreating and those facts have not been rebutted in the slightest. At least Lees tries, a bit desperately and pathetically, to defend his denialist stance

Wrong. once again.
Glaciers and ice sheets advance AND retreat. All the time.
The world maybe warming. Given the state of the science, with VERY wide error bars, there is no certainty in how much the world has warmed; if indeed it has.

You still haven't explained how Global temperature was 62.45ºF in 1997 and was apparently warmer in 2016 when it was 58.69ºF.  That is the state of climate science.

You just ignore those things that don't agree with your preconceived ideas.  And hope they will go away.

Where have I denied the climate changes? You use silly emotive language, more to convince yourself, than anyone else.

Put down the port and have a good lie down.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

Lukewarm support at best for GCRs causing condensation. None at all for GCRs causing any change to the climate. Nuclei are just too bloody small!

Monk,
apologise for posting the above lie.
I've proven that cloud chambers were discovered in 1911.

No, the glaciers have been retreating for a long time.

Arctic ice—the opposite of an ice age is what we see:
http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/TrendArcticIce19812018_zpsttpjdczu.png


Global temperatures—no ice age in sight:
http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png

See, this stuff about an ice age is 100% hogwash!

---

JM just loves to start the ice loss at 1979, an anomalous high.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

tell us about Kilimanjaro. - Oh that's right that's because of the natives taking all the timber. ;)

Look at those poor glaciers retreating - revealing tree stumps, old Roman mines, roads. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do you think Hannibal crossed the Alps at a time of high glacial activity or low?

Looks like the decline started seriously in 1970, accelerated when the sun started emitting a smidge less radiation in the 1980s.

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/mean_anomaly_1953-2012_zpsneeeajne.png

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25th, 2018 at 1:15pm: Lukewarm support at best for GCRs causing condensation. None at all for GCRs causing any change to the climate. Nuclei are just too bloody small! Monk, apologise for posting the above lie. I've proven that cloud chambers were discovered in 1911.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:

No, the glaciers have been retreating for a long time. Arctic ice—the opposite of an ice age is what we see: See, this stuff about an ice age is 100% hogwash!

Monk - apologise or cease posting on this forum.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:42pm:

Looks like the decline started seriously in 1970, accelerated when the sun started emitting a smidge less radiation in the 1980s.

Oh. The RE-analysis. Try looking at Figure 7.20a page 224 in the First Assessment Report (FAR).

1979 was an anomalous high.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/image87.png

A copy of the original.


BTW - From the paper attached to you magic graph

" In this DA study we follow up on this question using extended data records of the Arctic sea ice observations (1953 to 2012) that combine satellite observations and operational sea ice charts from multiple sources. We use climate simulations from
eight models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) under different climate forcing combinations.

https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

You sure do love those models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 9:03am:

Grendel wrote on Apr 24th, 2018 at 9:48am: STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE. I like this...  from Barnacle... Quote: First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage. Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::) I do not recall anyone ever saying that Global warming would be immune to other natural temperature events ? Lucky this one is a cooling event and not the opposite ?

missed the point again as usual no wonder you have never understood the arguments. :D :D :D :D :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 10:54am:

Grendel wrote on Apr 24th, 2018 at 9:48am: STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE. I like this...  from Barnacle... Quote: First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage. Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Is that your conclusion? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I don't know where you got the idea that one thing controls temperature. Here's a project for you. Why don't you tell us what the hottest planet in the solar system is You can google it if you like

heeeeeey barny....  don't blame me for what YOU write. :D :D :D :D :D

Booby, just shut up.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah, he really doesn’t.

Cloud chamber:


Quote:

A cloud chamber consists of a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. An energetic charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the gaseous mixture by knocking electrons off gas molecules via electrostatic forces during collisions, resulting in a trail of ionized gas particles. The resulting ions act as condensation centers around which a mist-like trail of small droplets form if the gas mixture is at the point of condensation.

(wiki)

supersaturated vapor—does that happen in the atmosphere?

We also see the vapor must be “at the point of condensation” which is probably why the adiabatic cooling is done (by increasing the volume of the chamber containing the vapor.)

How often does this happen in the atmosphere?

It is not feasible that some cosmic rays change the climate here. We have more clouds because in a warmer world we have more evaporation. And the world IS warming. Next big El Nino will be a real doozy—I would like to think another big El Nino might actually have action happening but fear that some hugely destructive flood on the east coast of the US needs to happen before action is taken.

With the Gulf Stream slowing down that flood will happen  :(

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 11:03am:

supersaturated vapor—does that happen in the atmosphere?

Does condensation happen adiabatically in the atmosphere?

Still relying on the models slowing the Gulf Stream I see. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:

No, the glaciers have been retreating for a long time. Arctic ice—the opposite of an ice age is what we see: http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/TrendArcticIce19812018_zpsttpjdczu.png Global temperatures—no ice age in sight: http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png See, this stuff about an ice age is 100% hogwash!

LOL
We've been over this before too...
Only some glaciers are retreating...

Glaciers grow and retreat all the time...  FACT. :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25th, 2018 at 6:33pm: No, the glaciers have been retreating for a long time. Arctic ice—the opposite of an ice age is what we see: http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/TrendArcticIce19812018_zpsttpjdczu.png Global temperatures—no ice age in sight: http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png See, this stuff about an ice age is 100% hogwash! LOL We've been over this before too... Only some glaciers are retreating... Glaciers grow and retreat all the time...  FACT. :D :D :D

Wrong Grendel. Over the past 100 years pretty much all glaciers have retreated. This is irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming.

Also can you please answer my question about which planet is the hottest in the solar system.
Google is your friend

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:12pm:

Wrong Grendel. Over the past 100 years pretty much all glaciers have retreated.

So Some are retreating and some are not. Wow. That was really difficult wasn't it?


The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:12pm:

This is irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming.

So Foehns etc have no impact? If it is warming how much has it warmed? How much is attributable to CO2? How much is it due to UHI?

Warming precedes CO2.

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:39pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26th, 2018 at 3:12pm: Wrong Grendel. Over the past 100 years pretty much all glaciers have retreated. So Some are retreating and some are not. Wow. That was really difficult wasn't it?

No lee, stop deliberately obfuscating. The VAST MAJORITY have receeded over the past hundred years. More than 50% = warming.


lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:39pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26th, 2018 at 3:12pm: This is irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming. So Foehns etc have no impact? If it is warming how much has it warmed? How much is attributable to CO2? How much is it due to UHI? Warming precedes CO2.

So you concede that it is warming  ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 4:42pm:

No lee, stop deliberately obfuscating. The VAST MAJORITY have receeded over the past hundred years. More than 50% = warming.

Yes. Some are receding and some advancing.  So if it is warming; how come some are advancing?


The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 4:42pm:

So you concede that it is warming  Wink

Nope. I merely said warming precedes CO2. That is warming comes before CO2 rise.

Sigh.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2018 at 6:24pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25th, 2018 at 1:15pm: Lukewarm support at best for GCRs causing condensation. None at all for GCRs causing any change to the climate. Nuclei are just too bloody small! Monk, apologise for posting the above lie. I've proven that cloud chambers were discovered in 1911. Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25th, 2018 at 6:33pm: No, the glaciers have been retreating for a long time. Arctic ice—the opposite of an ice age is what we see: See, this stuff about an ice age is 100% hogwash! Monk - apologise or cease posting on this forum.

Monk - you didn't apologise for the blatant lie above.

That is not acceptable on this forum.

Cloud chambers have similar conditions to the upper atmosphere
& small nuclei can cause clouds.
That information has been known about for over 100 years
yet you deny it - proven science that can be proven again
with any simple experiment.

I'll let you off on this occasion but expect to be called out on
every lie you post from now on.

Monk's scientific knowledge is over 100 years out of date:

Cloud chambers have been known about since 1911.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber


He pursued the application of this discovery and perfected the first cloud chamber in 1911. In Wilson's original chamber the air inside the sealed device was saturated with water vapor, then a diaphragm was used to expand the air inside the chamber (adiabatic expansion), cooling the air and starting to condense water vapor. Hence the name expansion cloud chamber is used. When an ionizing particle passes through the chamber, water vapor condenses on the resulting ions and the trail of the particle is visible in the vapor cloud.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chxv5G6UFl0[

Galactic Cosmic Rays do NOT cause condensation in the atmosphere. The nuclei they create are too small.

The increase in clouds is due to more evaporation from warmer waters into warmer air. Dubyne is just covering up for the extra clouds due to AGW. If you knew any science you would know that but then again if you knew any science you would not be sucking down the bullshit Dubyne puts in his lying videos.

You are also a crap Mod who has destroyed this board. Please resign so Environment can be salvaged.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Galactic Cosmic Rays do NOT cause condensation in the atmosphere. The nuclei they create are too small. The increase in clouds is due to more evaporation from warmer waters into warmer air. Dubyne is just covering up for the extra clouds due to AGW. If you knew any science you would know that but then again if you knew any science you would not be sucking down the bullshit Dubyne puts in his lying videos. You are also a crap Mod who has destroyed this board. Please resign so Environment can be salvaged.

Monk - you're a liar and I caught you out and

I'm not going anywhere -

I'm staying right here.

Your lies will be pointed out from now on with scientific evidence.

Galactic cosmic rays do cause clouds to form.

No they don’t and there are any number of studies that say they don}t.

You show your scientific ignorance more every day.

I posted graphs:

1. Temperatures increasing

2. Arctic ice decreasing, so is Antarctic ice and so is Himalayan ice

The globe is warming and you make yourself look stupid by persisting with this ice age crap. That crap really belongs in Fringe! Mystic nonsense is what it is.

Oh, but NOAA fiddles the data you cry desperately. Fairy tales for children. We have seen Trump and Pruitt remove AGW data from government websites so THEY are fiddling the data.

The temperatures are increasing, the ice is melting and the sea levels are rising. Sensible people draw the obvious conclusions, children like you seek assurance it isn’t happening. Bah!

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:12pm:

Grendel wrote on Apr 26th, 2018 at 2:13pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25th, 2018 at 6:33pm: No, the glaciers have been retreating for a long time. Arctic ice—the opposite of an ice age is what we see: http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/TrendArcticIce19812018_zpsttpjdczu.png Global temperatures—no ice age in sight: http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png See, this stuff about an ice age is 100% hogwash! LOL We've been over this before too... Only some glaciers are retreating... Glaciers grow and retreat all the time...  FACT. :D :D :D Wrong Grendel. Over the past 100 years pretty much all glaciers have retreated. This is irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming. Also can you please answer my question about which planet is the hottest in the solar system. Google is your friend

Wrong barnacle...

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:

No they don’t and there are any number of studies that say they don}t. You show your scientific ignorance more every day. I posted graphs: 1. Temperatures increasing 2. Arctic ice decreasing, so is Antarctic ice and so is Himalayan ice The globe is warming and you make yourself look stupid by persisting with this ice age crap. That crap really belongs in Fringe! Mystic nonsense is what it is.

I posted the FACTS on Glaciers...  YOu and Barny as usual ignore them... :D :D :D :D :D

LOL on another indirectly related issue... The Albedo Effect.
Monk as with all issues knows nothing and simply regurgitates verbatim articles and graphs and images, no matter how wrong he actually is.

No, roach it is really VERY simple.

1. Almost ALL glaciers are retreating. They are retreating because the world is warming.

2. A very few glaciers, in high latitudes or high altitudes and favorably oriented with respect to prevailing winds benefit from the increased precipitation, as snow, caused by increased evaporation caused by AGW.

Some of the glaciers retreating are massive: Jacobshavn and Petermann on Greenland, Pine Island and Thwaites on West Antarctica and Totten on East Antarctica. Also some in the Himalayan ice sheet. Sea level rise will continue accelerating.

With ice and snow retreating almost everywhere albedo is a positive feedback for AGW, roach. The rapid warming in the Arctic due AGW + albedo is called Arctic Amplification. It is playing merry hob with the Jet Stream and even the Polar Vortex.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

With ice and snow retreating almost everywhere albedo is a positive feedback for AGW, roach. The rapid warming in the Arctic due AGW + albedo is called Arctic Amplification. It is playing merry hob with the Jet Stream and even the Polar Vortex.

Monk - can you try to be unbiased like me and
admit that there are strong arguments on both sides of this debate?

And, roach, I do not just repost articles, papers etc. I post extracts but also give my own commentary. Not just wrong roach—dishonest too. Such is the lot of deniers now  :)

JM has implict faith in the Model fairy. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:

but NOAA fiddles the data you cry desperately

So when are you going to tell us about 1997 62.45ºF being somehow cooler than 2016 58.69ºF.

That is what NOAA data shows. ;)

You are not unbiased, you believe Dubyne and the nonsense he puts in his videos implicitly. It is really quite icky to see the puppy love with with you regard that liar!

LOOK at my charts! Temperatures are going up and ice extent (and volume even more) is decreasing. For gods sake show some backbone, some independence, some dignity. Ick!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

I post extracts but also give my own commentary.

You mean like CNN, The Atlantic, The  Garudian? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You know, I had a thought today. Lees is not just a 20th century person trapped in the 21st, he is really an 18th or 19th century person trapped in the 21st century.

Lees yearns for stability, for stasis.

Too bad lees, you should have lived in the 19th century. In that century the duty on Scottish ales was constant so we have Scottish 140/- ale, 120 shilling ale etc. The duty per barrel of ale did not change until 1905 or so. Imagine: a century where prices remained so stable beers could be named after the duty paid per barrel.

Your bad luck: you are in the 21st century where IA, quantum computing, AGW, Marriage Equality, editing the human genome etc etc are all mainstream or about to be. Your SUV will be considered a quaint old relic among sleek EVs who just leave your SUV in the dust—and are cheaper to run as well!

And AGW and sea level rise are going to rudely intrude into your life and lifestyle.

I would feel sorry for you but life has to change and adapt or die and you are a fossil.

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:

JM has implict faith in the Model fairy. ;) Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26th, 2018 at 6:33pm: but NOAA fiddles the data you cry desperately So when are you going to tell us about 1997 62.45ºF being somehow cooler than 2016 58.69ºF. That is what NOAA data shows. ;)

Yes and we had whole posts about fake NOAA & NASA data
all fudged to make it look like it was warming when it was cooling - of course Monk ignored every article.


We had articles where scientists explained that they were there
to prove global warming not normal climate variation or global cooling.
They would lose their funding if they found that so what did they do?

answer

they fudged the figures.
Scientific fraud is all around us.

Monk gets sucked in by it - as though he was a little child.

Dubyne the liar said BoM and De Bilt fudged the figures. He had his arse handed back to him on both occasions.

When the only thing you can say in the face of rising temperatures, rising sea levels and decreasing ice “the figures are rigged” then you are clinging on to a faith, a faith in Booby’s case in a transparent liar called Dubyne.

There was a blue aurora—must be an ice age!

A GSM is supposed to bring in a minor ice age. A 0.3°C temporary cooling compared to 1.2°C warming is supposed to bring in an ice age? Booby, do you believe Narnia, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, the tooth fairy etc are real???

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

You know, I had a thought today. Lees is not just a 20th century person trapped in the 21st, he is really an 18th or 19th century person trapped in the 21st century.

Wow. One on one day; a new world record. even if it is wrong.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Too bad lees, you should have lived in the 19th century. In that century the duty on Scottish ales was constant so we have Scottish 140/- ale, 120 shilling ale etc. The duty per barrel of ale did not change until 1905 or so. Imagine: a century where prices remained so stable beers could be named after the duty paid per barrel. Your bad luck: you are in the 21st century where IA, quantum computing, AGW, Marriage Equality, editing the human genome etc etc are all mainstream or about to be. Your SUV will be considered a quaint old relic among sleek EVs who just leave your SUV in the dust—and are cheaper to run as well! And AGW and sea level rise are going to rudely intrude into your life and lifestyle.

Well at 70 years of age it had better happen faster than your predictions. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

I would feel sorry for you but life has to change and adapt or die and you are a fossil.

Guess what? Even if we adapt we still die. We are not immortal.

Jeez your drivel is not of this world.

Have you looked at ushcn raw data versus adjusted data? Or isn't that part of your world?

Poor old Lees, a 19th century fossil in a 21st century world.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:09pm:

Poor old Lees, a 19th 20th century fossil in a 21st century world.

But JM is going into his second childhood so he can claim 21st century status. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You could, if you wanted to, feel sorry for Booby.

Why wasn’t he given an education? He is not a nice person—ad homs just stream from him—but I think has some intelligence unlike, say, The Moronic.

But no capacity, no background in science, his fear of AGW saw him believe a snake oil seller like Dubyne. A blue aurora means an ice age. A heavy snowfall means cooling—no, it means precipitation.

Somebody tells him to try the undamped system crap. It goes down like a lead balloon because Booby doesn’t understand him. Who told you to try the feedback fairy tale Booby? Then someone tells you about cloud chambers—something I learned about in 1968—but you don’t realise the conditions in a cloud chamber are not the same as in the atmosphere.

The globe is warming, Booby, not cooling and for gods sake realise that before you end up in the booby hatch!

No lees, I can see what happens around me and adjust and adapt. You are the 19th century fossil. Poor fossil.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:16pm:

You could, if you wanted to, feel sorry for Booby. Why wasn’t he given an education? He is not a nice person—ad homs just stream from him—but I think has some intelligence unlike, say, The Moronic. But no capacity, no background in science, his fear of AGW saw him believe a snake oil seller like Dubyne. A blue aurora means an ice age. A heavy snowfall means cooling—no, it means precipitation. Somebody tells him to try the undamped system crap. It goes down like a lead balloon because Booby doesn’t understand him. Who told you to try the feedback fairy tale Booby? Then someone tells you about cloud chambers—something I learned about in 1968—but you don’t realise the conditions in a cloud chamber are not the same as in the atmosphere. The globe is warming, Booby, not cooling and for gods sake realise that before you end up in the booby hatch!

Monk - the way you babble on I doubt you  have even a  1st year Uni understanding of science.
Even kids at school know more than you.

The first thing you get wrong is that contrary evidence cannot be ignored.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:17pm:

No lees, I can see what happens around me and adjust and adapt. You are the 19th century fossil. Poor fossil.

But you are also over 70 and the climate doesn't seem to be changing that fast. Even if you do go and hibernate in Tasmania. ;)

So why won't you tell us about the discrepancy in the NOAA data? Each time you are asked you either skulk off or get your tits in a tangle and get the rags on. Not a good look.

Surely a man of your scientific integrity can answer the question.

I am 70—for a little while that.

One thing I will say about myself: I can stare unpleasant facts in the face. That allowed me to keep one business going in the face of difficulties that would have destroyed other people.

My concern is not so much for myself, I have said before that I will likely be safely and cosily dead before the real nasties show themselves. I am concerned for great nephews and great nieces and their kids who will have to face the consequences now becoming apparent. I would to have them given a bit of a break.

Cowards deny, bigger cowards seek refuge in fairy tales. Not for me.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:57pm:

I am 70—for a little while that. One thing I will say about myself: I can stare unpleasant facts in the face. That allowed me to keep one business going in the face of difficulties that would have destroyed other people. My concern is not so much for myself, I have said before that I will likely be safely and cosily dead before the real nasties show themselves. I am concerned for great nephews and great nieces and their kids who will have to face the consequences now becoming apparent. I would to have them given a bit of a break. Cowards deny, bigger cowards seek refuge in fairy tales. Not for me.

And you still won't answer the question. Now is that cowardly or what?

So your fairy tale, that does not include any dis-conformities in the data, how do you convince yourself that it is all the fault of "deniers"? That it is all a chimera?

Or perhaps you have no scientific integrity.

Aaawwwwwwwww grandpa is trying to sound all up to date and stuff.

Thanks for the laugh Lees ahahahahahahahaha

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Aaawwwwwwwww grandpa is trying to sound all up to date and stuff. Thanks for the laugh Lees ahahahahahahahaha

Still dodging the question. You are a fraud.

Let us look at the evidence I have put up.

1. Temperature graph. Shows the globe is warming. Booby says the data is rigged—no actual evidence of the rigging given. Trump and Pruitt are the ones trying to hide the evidence, not NASA/NOAA/NSIDC/MetOffice/BuMet.

2. Graphs of Arctic ice. Definite decrease in Arctic ice extent and even bigger decrease in ice volume.

3. Nearly all glaciers are retreating bar a few benefitting from increased precipitation that AGW brings.

4. There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1850. Isotopic analysis of the oxygen atoms in the CO2 molecules show they came from burning fossil fuels. There is a carbon cycle but we add CO2 on top of that.

5. We have the spectroscopic evidence that H2O combined with CO2 block IR radiation from escaping to space. IR radiation is how a black body rids itself of heat imparted by radiation, in the case of the earth from sunlight.

6. Sea level is rising from the melting of glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of the oceans


None of this stuff is hard to understand. The message is pretty grim and many do not want to understand it and are ready to listen to deniers and frauds many of whom are paid by fossil fuel interests who want to keep selling fossil fuels. Many just decide it is too hard and decide to ignore it. That is not the way to deal with unpleasant facts.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

Let us look at the evidence I have put up. 1. Temperature graph. Shows the globe is warming. Booby says the data is rigged—no actual evidence of the rigging given. Trump and Pruitt are the ones trying to hide the evidence, not NASA/NOAA/NSIDC/MetOffice/BuMet. 2. Graphs of Arctic ice. Definite decrease in Arctic ice extent and even bigger decrease in ice volume. 3. Nearly all glaciers are retreating bar a few benefitting from increased precipitation that AGW brings. 4. There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1850. Isotopic analysis of the oxygen atoms in the CO2 molecules show they came from burning fossil fuels. There is a carbon cycle but we add CO2 on top of that. 5. We have the spectroscopic evidence that H2O combined with CO2 block IR radiation from escaping to space. IR radiation is how a black body rids itself of heat imparted by radiation, in the case of the earth from sunlight. 6. Sea level is rising from the melting of glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of the oceans None of this stuff is hard to understand. The message is pretty grim and many do not want to understand it and are ready to listen to deniers and frauds many of whom are paid by fossil fuel interests who want to keep selling fossil fuels. Many just decide it is too hard and decide to ignore it. That is not the way to deal with unpleasant facts.

What about the contrary evidence?

332 pages of such evidence posted on this forum.

Strip away the padding and the record of cold events is much less.

And that is all there is, local cold events.

No evidence of anything except some places were cold for a while. Since heat events are rigorously excluded by Dubyne there is no integrity to what he puts up.

Temperatures—increasing, ice decreasing. Sea levels rising. Glaciers retreating. That is the reality.

Hail is not a symptom of cooling. It is formed high in the atmosphere in massive thunderstorms. Dubyne incidentally mentions increased precipitation—where does the extra moisture come from that precipitates as rain, hail or snow? AGW, warmer oceans evaporating more into warmer air that can now carry 8% more moisture than it could in the 1800s.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 7:13am:

Strip away the padding and the record of cold events is much less. And that is all there is, local cold events. No evidence of anything except some places were cold for a while. Since heat events are rigorously excluded by Dubyne there is no integrity to what he puts up. Temperatures—increasing, ice decreasing. Sea levels rising. Glaciers retreating. That is the reality. Hail is not a symptom of cooling. It is formed high in the atmosphere in massive thunderstorms. Dubyne incidentally mentions increased precipitation—where does the extra moisture come from that precipitates as rain, hail or snow? AGW, warmer oceans evaporating more into warmer air that can now carry 8% more moisture than it could in the 1800s.

No way - in a warming climate we wouldn't be having record cold
events all over the world.

We don’t have record cold events all over the world.

The distribution of temperatures over the last 100 years has shifted to the warm side but that still leaves some in the cold region. Temperatures have increased by 1.2°C, not 12°C.

If you were to look for record heat events you would find many many more of them. But you won’t—there is that lack of education and the lack of integrity coming through. You cannot plausibly deny the global temperature has risen and you cannot plausibly deny that ice is retreating, permafrost is melting and so on.

This figure is from the BoM “State of the Climate 2016” report:

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/Environment/2018%20Temp%20data/BoM-temperature_distribution-shift_zpstcgxm3ux.png

Have a look and a think, if you can think.

NOAA produced a similar chart for world temperatures.

Cold events are still possible—no one has ever said they aren’t—but hot events are more possible and occur more often. But the distribution of temperatures has shifted to the warm side and that is why ice is melting and sea levels rising and more evaporation-precipitation is taking place.

If we really were in an ice age then the temperature distribution would have moved to the cold side.

A statistical test for the difference between means, Student’s t-test for example, would find the difference between the means is significant, that is, temperatures really have shifted to the warm side.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

The first thing you get wrong is that contrary evidence cannot be ignored.

This comes from a bloke who thinks we are in an ice age despite temperatures increasing and ice decreasing.

Get the beam out of your eye before trying to remove the speck you think is in mine. That biblical enough for you, pseudochristian?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 7:36am:

We don’t have record cold events all over the world.

Yes we do  - what about the bombogenesis?

That's just one of 1000s of record cold events that haven't just affected
one tiny town but entire continents.
You don't even listen to the evidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

1. Temperature graph. Shows the globe is warming. Booby says the data is rigged—no actual evidence of the rigging given.

You still haven't explained NOAA's hottest ever temperature is recorded as 62.45ºF way back in 1997, not 2016. You still dodge the question. You simply want to put more lipstick on the pig.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

2. Graphs of Arctic ice. Definite decrease in Arctic ice extent and even bigger decrease in ice volume.

And a lot of that with BIG uncertainties.

"We find large uncertainties in the total sea ice volume and trend. The mean total sea ice volume is 10 120 ±1280 km³ in October/November and 13 250 ±1860 km³ in February/March for the time period  2005–2007.  Based  on  these  uncertainties  we  obtain trends in sea ice volume of 1450 ±530 km³ a^-1 in October/November and −880 ±260 km³ a⁻¹ in February/March over  the  ICESat  period  (2003–2008).  Our  results  indicate that, taking into account the uncertainties, the decline in sea ice volume in the Arctic between the ICESat (2003–2008) and CryoSat-2 (2010–2012) periods may have been less dramatic than reported in previous studies"

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/705/2014/tc-8-705-2014.pdf

oh look uncertainties. Something never mentioned by the "climate faithful".

An of course only back to 1979; except of course where they use 11,000 processors to somehow go back to 1954. GIGO ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

3. Nearly all glaciers are retreating bar a few benefitting from increased precipitation that AGW brings.

Yeah. Glaciers doing what glaciers do best. Adavnce/retreat.

Of look. A benefit of AGW. ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

4. There is 46% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1850. Isotopic analysis of the oxygen atoms in the CO2 molecules show they came from burning fossil fuels. There is a carbon cycle but we add CO2 on top of that.

3% woohoo. You can explain the constraints on CO2?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

5. We have the spectroscopic evidence that H2O combined with CO2 block IR radiation from escaping to space. IR radiation is how a black body rids itself of heat imparted by radiation, in the case of the earth from sunlight.

Oh, oh back to the claim of earth being a black body.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

6. Sea level is rising from the melting of glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of the oceans

How much? Given we have a complete unknown in Global Isostatic Adjustment in the mix; we have no way of knowing. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:

None of this stuff is hard to understand. The message is pretty grim and many do not want to understand it and are ready to listen to deniers and frauds many of whom are paid by fossil fuel interests who want to keep selling fossil fuels. Many just decide it is too hard and decide to ignore it. That is not the way to deal with unpleasant facts.

But you still insist on trying to convince others it is "settled science". How can it be "settled science" when you can't quantify it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 8:28am:

This figure is from the BoM “State of the Climate 2016” report:

Oh look A bell curve. Bell curves are used when something is normally distributed. Weather stations do not fit the criteria.

A bell curve means that a value is normally distributed.

Temperatures do not quite form bell curves, if you look at the distributions carefully.

Oh dear, Lees thinks that it is weather stations that are normally distributed. Nope, the curves are the curves of temperatures and the temperatures are, at first glance, normally distributed.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 12:02pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27th, 2018 at 7:36am: We don’t have record cold events all over the world. Yes we do  - what about the bombogenesis? That's just one of 1000s of record cold events that haven't just affected one tiny town but entire continents. You don't even listen to the evidence.

I have already explained that bombogenesis refers not to cold but to a rapid barometric pressure drop, like 960 to 940 in 24 hours in a storm centre. Bombogenesis was a term coined by NASA.

Those northeasters that hit New England started in the North Atlantic Ocean where temperatures were like 9°C warmer than normal. This was in the part of the Atlantic where the Gulf Stream flows—a fingerprint of a slowing Gulf Stream. That three northeasters hit New England was due to a stuck Jet Stream pattern. The strength of the north easters was due to the warm Atlantic.

The Beast from the East was cold Arctic air pushed out of the Arctic by warm air pushing in from Siberia. Looking at the cold events gives you a distorted version of reality.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 1:18pm:

Oh dear, Lees thinks that it is weather stations that are normally distributed. Nope, the curves are the curves of temperatures and the temperatures are, at first glance, normally distributed.

Wrong.

The weather stations are on various parts of the globe. They will therefore measure the local temperature. You could get a bell curve for a single weather station. After that it is more like necromancy.

You forget the role spatial diversity would have on the output.

Take a bell curve for a SH station add it to a bell curve for a NH station multiply by thousands and agitate to provide an output. A washing machine. rinse and repeat. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 1:22pm:

I have already explained that bombogenesis refers not to cold but to a rapid barometric pressure drop, like 960 to 940 in 24 hours in a storm centre. Bombogenesis was a term coined by NASA. Those northeasters that hit New England started in the North Atlantic Ocean where temperatures were like 9°C warmer than normal. This was in the part of the Atlantic where the Gulf Stream flows—a fingerprint of a slowing Gulf Stream. That three northeasters hit New England was due to a stuck Jet Stream pattern. The strength of the north easters was due to the warm Atlantic. The Beast from the East was cold Arctic air pushed out of the Arctic by warm air pushing in from Siberia. Looking at the cold events gives you a distorted version of reality.

So these events going back to the 1800's were caused by the Gulf Stream slowing each time and then speeding up not to cause it? ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 7:13am:

Strip away the padding and the record of cold events is much less. And that is all there is, local cold events. No evidence of anything except some places were cold for a while. Since heat events are rigorously excluded by Dubyne there is no integrity to what he puts up. Temperatures—increasing, ice decreasing. Sea levels rising. Glaciers retreating. That is the reality. Hail is not a symptom of cooling. It is formed high in the atmosphere in massive thunderstorms. Dubyne incidentally mentions increased precipitation—where does the extra moisture come from that precipitates as rain, hail or snow? AGW, warmer oceans evaporating more into warmer air that can now carry 8% more moisture than it could in the 1800s.

Yeah Some places -
Here are some of the Ice Age Farmer’s warnings:

    Folks in Ohio are not able to start planting.
    Folks in Nebraska are not able to start planting.
    Folks in Illinois are not able to start planting.
    Folks in North Dakota are not able to start planting.
    Folks in South Dakota are not able to start planting.
    None of Iowa’s farmland is ready for planting


Source: Ice age farmer.

Grendel wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:

LOL on another indirectly related issue... The Albedo Effect. Monk as with all issues knows nothing and simply regurgitates verbatim articles and graphs and images, no matter how wrong he actually is.

I told you MONK simply reproduces JUNK...
Post after post after post...  seems he didn't even know what the Albedo Effect was and simply ignored that issue and went on his usual ad hom and lies.
Way to win an argument Monk guess you cant use your usual expletive ridden crap here eh. :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
Oh and Monk simply saying WRONG, doesn't make you right or the other person wrong now does it. ::)

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:37am:

Grendel wrote on Apr 26th, 2018 at 6:40pm: LOL on another indirectly related issue... The Albedo Effect. Monk as with all issues knows nothing and simply regurgitates verbatim articles and graphs and images, no matter how wrong he actually is. I told you MONK simply reproduces JUNK... Post after post after post...  seems he didn't even know what the Albedo Effect was and simply ignored that issue and went on his usual ad hom and lies.  Doing exactly what I said he does. Way to win an argument Monk guess you cant use your usual expletive ridden crap here eh. :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::) Oh and Monk simply saying WRONG, doesn't make you right or the other person wrong now does it. ::)

ahahahahahaha I have mentioned the albedo effect several times. It is why the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, Arctic Amplification.

Bottom of the class for roach again.

Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 9:48am:

Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::)

So Grendel, given your statement above, can you please state which planet is the hottest in the solar system?

Uhh—is it Pluto?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://www.realclimate.org/images/AR4spm2.jpg

(diagram from the fourth IPCC report of 2007)

Not just the sun but, but, but roach said it was!

hehehe

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 11:48am:

Uhh—is it Pluto?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D

I think this might be an interesting question for Bobby too
Since he is so obsessed with the solar minimum maybe eh can tell us which planet is the hottest in the solar system

Oh look; a question about atmospheric pressure and temperature. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 12:09pm:

Oh look; a question about atmospheric pressure and temperature. ;)

Why don't you answer the question then lee?

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 12:13pm:

Why don't you answer the question then lee?

Because you do not want to admit the effect of pressure on temperature. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 12:36pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29th, 2018 at 12:13pm: Why don't you answer the question then lee? Because you do not want to admit the effect of pressure on temperature. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Once again lee is diverting and obfuscating.
He wouldn't recognize an honest debate if he tripped over one.

You do realize i am asking this question in relation to Grendel's and Bobby's statements.


Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 9:48am:

Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh? ::)

So Grendel, given your statement above, can you please state which planet is the hottest in the solar system?

Yeah. Funnily enough, it is not Mercury that is the hottest planet.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 1:08pm:

He wouldn't recognize an honest debate if he tripped over one.

You would however recognise a Mass Debate, that's your forte. ;)


The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 1:08pm:

You do realize i am asking this question in relation to Grendel's and Bobby's statements.

Yes.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 4:39pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29th, 2018 at 1:08pm: He wouldn't recognize an honest debate if he tripped over one. You would however recognise a Mass Debate, that's your forte. ;) The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29th, 2018 at 1:08pm: You do realize i am asking this question in relation to Grendel's and Bobby's statements. Yes.

So, you're calling him a mass debater.

Sounds like 'masturbater' so, essentially, you're calling him a wanker.

Yeah?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:44am:

ahahahahahaha I have mentioned the albedo effect several times. It is why the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, Arctic Amplification. Bottom of the class for roach again.

nah that's you Monkey Boy....  you are so dense you either miseed the point are are being so dishonest you are ignoring it. :D :D :D :D

how typical.

Nope.

YEP... ;D ;D ;D

Oh and barny you can stop asking me the stupid primary school question...  I know the answer.

You though ignore the fact that the Sun...  as you stated...  controls...  is the primary reason for... light and heat in our solar system. ::) ::) ::)


No Sun, far less light, far less heat and far less energy... ::)

The output of the sun is pretty steady tho.

In the 1980s the suns output has slipped a tiny bit, yet. . .

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png

Volcanoes affect global temperature too, if they are big enough. Any idea how and why, roach?

oh, Look.

back to estimates again.

regurgitation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So, roach, comments?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 1:22pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27th, 2018 at 12:02pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27th, 2018 at 7:36am: We don’t have record cold events all over the world. Yes we do  - what about the bombogenesis? That's just one of 1000s of record cold events that haven't just affected one tiny town but entire continents. You don't even listen to the evidence. I have already explained that bombogenesis refers not to cold but to a rapid barometric pressure drop, like 960 to 940 in 24 hours in a storm centre. Bombogenesis was a term coined by NASA. Those northeasters that hit New England started in the North Atlantic Ocean where temperatures were like 9°C warmer than normal. This was in the part of the Atlantic where the Gulf Stream flows—a fingerprint of a slowing Gulf Stream. That three northeasters hit New England was due to a stuck Jet Stream pattern. The strength of the north easters was due to the warm Atlantic. The Beast from the East was cold Arctic air pushed out of the Arctic by warm air pushing in from Siberia. Looking at the cold events gives you a distorted version of reality.

So David DuByne predicts massive cold and snow events affecting entire continents
and when his predictions come true you always have a convenient excuse.
Sorry Monk - I'm not buying it.

If anything you should apologise to David DuByne.

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISS-temp-graph_zpsz6mm0k2d.png

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/TrendArcticIce19812018_zps5qoenjoe.png

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/GISSGraphJanMar2018_zpsozuyvzy0.png

http://s1263.photobucket.com/user/maxine124/media/TrendArcticIce19812018_zpsttpjdczu.png.html?sort=3&o=3

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/march-2018-sixth-hottest_zpsk3bhplxl.png

Four graphics that show the globe is warming.

David Dubyne is a liar for profit, garnering donations and YouTube ad revenue from his dupes, his victims. I bet Dubyne is not his name and when the ice age scam is over his victims won’t be able to find him.

Monk - I don't know where you drag these graphs up from.

Do any show the Bombogenesis?

I also posted many graphs showing cooling instead.

Globally, the distribution of global minimum and maximum temperatures have shifted to the warm side:

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii636/maxine124/TrendArcticIce19812018_zps5qoenjoe.png

Those are graphs produced by various meteorological bodies. Apart from the Arctic ice decreasing over time they show global temperatures.

Local cold events mean nothing and that is what Liar Dubyne talks about all the time.

For the fourth time, bombogenesis refers to a sudden big drop in atmospheric pressure in a storm. If you are nattering about those three north easters, all of which were bombogenesis they were fed by a very warm Atlantic Ocean, the part where the Gulf Stream flows and directed to almost the same landfall by a stalled pattern of the Jet Stream.

And, for the tenth time, global temperatures have risen 1.2°C since 1880, not 12°C. Cold events are still possible. They also mostly happen in winter.

Monk,

Quote:

Local cold events mean nothing and that is what Liar Dubyne talks about all the time.

David DuByne is a messenger not a liar.
( not really acceptable language on this forum -
the island in a sea of contempt)
He gave us the message about the Bombogenesis.
It was also a continent wide event not a local cold event.
You're the one being a liar.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:03pm:

And, for the tenth time, global temperatures have risen 1.2°C since 1880, not 12°C. Cold events are still possible. They also mostly happen in winter.

And you still don't understand they are estimates with wide error bars. Even the graph you post says so.

It was NASA coined the term bombogenesis. It was meteorologists who reported on the storms forming, noted the bombogenesis, tracked the storm and the Jet Stream pattern etc.

Liar Dubyne had nothing to do with it except try to make it look like he predicted it and stuff. Of course, doubt he knew anything about the warm Atlantic, the stuck Jet Stream pattern etc. Then he acts like he knows all about it and you swallow it all down like a good little dupe.

Have you looked up that PDF I linked to and looked at the temperature distributions and how they have shifted to the warm side?

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:15pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2018 at 10:03pm: And, for the tenth time, global temperatures have risen 1.2°C since 1880, not 12°C. Cold events are still possible. They also mostly happen in winter. And you still don't understand they are estimates with wide error bars. Even the graph you post says so.

Monk is a dyed in the wool Al Gore supporter.
His opinions can't be changed.

Have you looked at those global temperature distributions and how they have shifted?

Stuff Al Gore, he is nothing to me.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:18pm:

Have you looked at those global temperature distributions and how they have shifted?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:18pm:

Have you looked at those global temperature distributions and how they have shifted? Stuff Al Gore, he is nothing to me.

yeah statistics. Gotta love them. Just nothing to do with the real world . 104 stations out of how many in Australia? What a cherry pick. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:18pm:

Have you looked at those global temperature distributions and how they have shifted? Stuff Al Gore, he is nothing to me.

Did you know that David DuByne would love to take on Al Gore in any debate?
I'm hoping it will happen but
Al Gore would never show up -
all his predictions have been proven wrong.

Nearly all glaciers are retreating and have been for decades. A few have grown, ones in high latitudes or altitudes oriented favorably with respect to prevailing winds. They benefit from the increased evaporation/precipitation that AGW provides. But generally glaciers are in retreat.

So are ice sheets now including both West and East Antarctica.

I don’t give a stuff about Al Gore. He and Dubyne could go into a physical fight to the death and I couldn’t give a stuff.

Now, have you looked at the four graphics I posted?

Care to comment?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Now, have you looked at the four graphics I posted? Care to comment?

I did.

Re: Why David DuByne is so very wrong
Reply #134 - Today at 9:48pm

That is not a comment.

Temperatures are going up and Arctic ice is disappearing, do you have a comment about that? A sensible comment?

Cat got your tongue?

What about the distribution of temperatures, you see there were more hot than cold spots around the world, remarkable with the northern hemisphere just coming out of winter.

Another question, one you have as usual evaded answering.

Dubyne said Arctic temperatures “were recovering.” The Arctic was just coming out of winter and Dubyne had lied, made a joke about the Arctic not being warm the week after warm air pushed into the Arctic.

So what were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Booby?

I put this same question to liar Dubyne on Twitter and he evaded answering it too. Obviously, the clown forgot he said the Arctic had not warmed, and that was a L I E wasn’t it, Booby?

Ok, obviously you have no answer.

David Dubyne LIED when he said the Arctic did not warm. I KNOW he did know the Arctic warmed because I told him about the northernmost weather station that by end Feb had recorded 61 days above zero. I gave him the details, he could have easily checked for himself.

David Dubyne, not his real name, lied to you about the Arctic not warming. Not a mistake, a lie, a knowing lie. Your hero.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 10:42pm:

That is not a comment. Temperatures are going up and Arctic ice is disappearing, do you have a comment about that? A sensible comment?

I've posted 2 graphs at least twice which shows that arctic & antarctic ice has increased since least year
& you chose to ignore it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2018 at 11:06pm:

Ok, obviously you have no answer. David Dubyne LIED when he said the Arctic did not warm. I KNOW he did know the Arctic warmed because I told him about the northernmost weather station that by end Feb had recorded 61 days above zero. I gave him the details, he could have easily checked for himself. David Dubyne, not his real name, lied to you about the Arctic not warming. Not a mistake, a lie, a knowing lie. Your hero.

Monk - I told you not to use that word lie -
use the word messenger instead.
This is not your sewer forum.

He LIED to you about the Arctic not warming! Lied!

That is a fact!

We can put it another way, tho you evade the question time after time:

When Dubyne said Arctic temperatures were recovering what were they recovering from?

The Arctic had just come out of the NH winter!

What were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Booby?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 6:53am:

We can put it another way, tho you evade the question time after time: When Dubyne said Arctic temperatures were recovering what were they recovering from? The Arctic had just come out of the NH winter! What were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Bobby?

I don't know what you're talking about.
Stop using the words: Booby, lie & liar.
I'm not going to be held responsible for every word
that David DuByne is supposed to have said.


Monk,
you're nothing but an internet troll &
you're getting close to being banned.

What were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Booby?

why did Dubyne lie and say the Arctic didn’t warm this NH winter just past? The northernmost weather station, on Greenland’s north coast recorded 61 days above 0°C by end February, yet Dubyne said the Arctic did not warm.

Dubyne lied, didn’t he Booby?

The Arctic warmed and Dubyne lied and said it didn’t then forgot he said that and said Arctic temperatures were recovering.

Care to address this?

The thick ice off the coast of north Greenland disappeared this last NH winter, that is how much the Arctic warmed!

Dubyne is always saying that Arctic ice is recovering but the graph I posted shows Arctic ice is disappearing! Another Dubyne lie!

Dubyne said the NW Passage would be blocked with thick ice next summer—this was a couple of years back. That next summer a big bloody cruise ship sailed the NW Passage! A third lie by Dubyne!

Monk - obviously you want to be banned.

You don't want a debate - you just want to make trouble.

How about if you disappear for 48 hours & have a think about your behaviour?

This is one occasion where the liar said Arctic temperatures were recovering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niaRajCkVFs

What were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Booby?

Can you not answer the question?

Dubyne said the Arctic did not warm, he made a video after the warming event and made a joke about the Arctic not warming. Then the idiot said Arctic temperatures were recovering.

What were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Booby?

You NEVER debate, you evade all questions.

What were Arctic temperatures recovering from, Booby, in early NH spring?

Obviously, Dubyne KNEW the Arctic had warmed, then said it hadn’t. That is what is called a lie, Booby, a L I E !

Remember, I told the liar about Arctic warming on Twitter, quoting that north Greenland weather station and the 61 days above freezing.

So how about addressing this?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 7:26am:

This is one occasion where the messenger said Arctic temperatures were recovering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niaRajCkVFs

Is this what you mean?

He said 3:30  -


Quote:

Arctic temperatures are now back to the  1958/2002 baseline.

And shows a graph.

Do not alter my posts!

Why did the liar say Arctic temperatures were recovering after previously denying the Arctic had warmed?

Back from what, Booby? The Arctic had just come out of the NH winter.

What did Arctic temperatures recover from if the Arctic hadn’t warmed?

Dubyne saying the Arctic had not warmed was a lie, wasn’t it? Saying Arctic temperatures had recovered was Dubyne forgetting he had lied about the Arctic not warming, right Booby?

Something cannot recover unless that something weakened beforehand.

What did Arctic temperatures recover from, Booby?

Can you tell me? You watch all those idiotic, lying videos, all of them. So what did Arctic temperatures recover FROM?

Monk - you have failed to follow my directions.

Cease posting on this forum for 48 hours.

Message sent to a GM.